[Sean_A]

Tom

It doesn't sound as if you are talking about preservation.  It sounds like you are advocating thoughtful change.  

My father used to have a laugh at preservationists.  He used to think of preservationists as people who would say " I still use grandpa's hammer.  Of course I have replaced the head and changed the handle twice."

Ciao

Sean

[T_MacWood]

Sean
I don't know what you are talking about.

There are different degrees of preservation...the standards of the Venice Charter (dealing with the conservation and restoration of historic buildings and monuments) is not the same as the standards of Florence Charter (dealing with historic gardens.) And neither charter dictates that these important places should be sold to a National Trust or similar body. That is a dumb idea.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood said:

"Why can't you identify important golf courses that should be preserved and protected? And why can't you set reasonable standards of preserving and protecting those important designs? You don't need to rip out the automatic  irrigation systems and have the greens stimp at 5 or 6 to preserve/protect a historic golf course."

Tom MacWood:

The central issue in acheiving that concept is who is "you"? In your remark above "you" is mentioned three times. Who is "you"?  

[Sean_A]

Tom

I am not at all sure what you are talking about.  Is it pie in the sky stuff?

Ciao

Sean

[Tony_Muldoon]

Tom you are either very tetchy today or it seems to me there's a quite widely employed tactic on here to insult another poster to ensure you get a response. The aim of this must be to make the poster doing the insulting feel good that people sit up and listen to them.  mmm.


I am still thinking about why we want to 'preserve' golf courses, if it was that important than I suppose a way could be found.  However I think there is a tendency here to talk about golf courses as if they exist as a finished object in themselves.  They aren't historical pieces for aficionados of architecture to walk over and admire the hand of the genius who designed them.  

Golf has developed too fast in the last century for any meaningful preservation to have taken place.  That's why I assume you were being ironic when you said the following:

You don't need to rip out the automatic irrigation systems... to preserve/protect a historic golf course.

[T_MacWood]

Tommy Mac

The members would need to sell to a "higher" authority of some repute (ie English Heritage or National Trust) for your suggestion to be taken seriously.  If a club was willing to sell and be resident members without power to effect change, then it would be a cool experiment.  Of course, as part of protecting a design, the club would have to open their doors to the public or there isn't much point in a "National Trust".  

Ciao

Sean

Yes. This suggestion is definitely pie in the sky.

[Sean_A]

Tommy Mac

I only mentioned it because I thought you were speaking of preservation as something like this.  In any case, I still Tony is much more on the mark.  Golf is far too dynamic and self interested to be preserved at a "high mark".

Jeepers it is hard to keep a two way street with you.  I spose I am not firing on all cylinders.

Ciao

Sean

[T_MacWood]

Tony
I'm sorry if you were offended, but it is a little frustrating when you interject absurd examples like this:

"Just the heights of the grass on the greens on the above courses would fail them from being a Grade one 'preserved' course. If you're not going to preserve it properly why do it at all?"

Obviously you have to come at this topic with some intelligence.

FRankly I don't understand your laissez faire attitude toward preserving and protecting the best designs of the best designers: places like NGLA, Cypress Point, Swinley Forest and Morfontaine. I would disagree with your comment: "They aren't historical pieces for aficionados of architecture to walk over and admire the hand of the genius who designed them."

Not only are CPC and NGLA great courses to play, they are historical pieces that many aficionados of architecture (including many on this site) have walked over and admired the genius who designed them. I think that is was what inspired Ran and his borther to start this site and it is why many have been drawn to this website. Perhaps not you however.

But I'd say yours has been a common attitude over the years, unfortunately your attitude has led to some unwise and unfortunate improvements over the years. Darwin was preaching prevervation in the 20's by the way.

[T_MacWood]

Sean
Are Cypress Point, Swinley Forest and NGLA well preserved? And why would you not advocate preserving them and protecting them from redesign?

[Sean_A]

I don't know if the courses you mention are well preserved.  As I say, my idea of preservation is much different than yours.  

I don't much see the point in advocating to preserve courses to a "high mark" if I don't have a stake in the course.  While I would dearly love to see more US classics some day and I love the game, I don't think these constitute as a stake in any of the course mentioned.  

If I owned the courses I wouldn't advocate architectural change.  However, I would want to slow down the greens to sub 10 and take a very critical look at the rough with an eye to making it shorter if need be (I hate looking for balls in the rough, especially when only 5 yards off the fairway).

So I spose in the world where I am king I would probably change very little.  In the real world people to ask my opinion.

Ciao

Sean

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()